extract_images

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so very well. It discloses that the operation is read-only, that collisions with existing files cause refusal before any writes, how naming works, and what metadata each result reports. This is unusually transparent behavior disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: extraction scope, naming scheme, special media handling, reported metadata, collision safety, and read-only status. The core purpose is front-loaded and the rest is organized detail with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers what gets extracted, how outputs are named, how unusual media sources are handled, what each result reports, collision behavior, and safety. The presence of an output schema means return fields need not be spelled out further.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains output_dir's role, prefix semantics ('prefix replaces image'), and the naming convention tied to list_images index. file_path is only implicitly the document path, but the overall meaning is largely recoverable from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: 'Extract every image in the document to files in output_dir.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_images by focusing on extraction to files rather than listing or modifying images.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need image files extracted from a document, named and saved to a directory. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as list_images, so an agent must infer the selection criteria from the verb and resource.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.